ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The Otoacoustic Emissions in the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening in China and India: An Update on the Asian States (2005 to 2025).
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChina and India represent a large proportion of the Asian birth cohort and have produced extensive but heterogeneous evidence on neonatal hearing screening. This scoping review summarizes studies published between 2005 and 2025 on otoacoustic-emission-based neonatal hearing screening programs in these countries, with emphasis on program implementation, screening coverage, the prevalence of congenital and bilateral hearing loss, follow-up, and intervention pathways.
methodsSearches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar using predefined keywords. Studies reporting screening protocols, coverage, prevalence, or follow-up outcomes were included. The standard English language filter was used. A total of 19 papers were considered for this review.
resultsThe data from the two assessed Asian states show two clearly different screening implementation profiles. In China, universal hearing screening has evolved into a large-scale and increasingly standardized system, supported by technical specifications and regional or municipal databases. The reported screening coverage was 85.8% in early rural programs, 93.6% in Shanghai, and 97.9% in Liuzhou. National institutional surveys indicate that UNHS has now been substantially implemented in many regions. Reported hearing loss prevalence estimates generally ranged from 1.66 to 3.43 per 1000 newborns, although follow-up and regional equity remain problematic, especially in rural settings. In India, the evidence is dominated by tertiary-hospital feasibility studies rather than a uniformly implemented national program. Reported hearing loss prevalence estimates varied more widely, from 0.29 to 5.60 per 1000 screened newborns, largely reflecting differences in study design, screening timing, referral completion, and population risk profile. Across both countries, OAE-based two-stage or sequential OAE + AABR protocols reduced referral rates and improved case identification, but loss to follow-up remained a recurrent limitation.
conclusionsChina and India provide complementary models of neonatal hearing screening expansion. China demonstrates the effects of system-level scale-up, whereas India highlights the feasibility and constraints of hospital-based implementation in a highly diverse healthcare environment. Future priorities include stronger follow-up systems, harmonized reporting standards, and broader dissemination of outcome data through peer-reviewed publications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.